Why the Democrats lost

[ComradeBadger]

No, it's not becuase everyone else is retarted.

It's becuase they are talking to their supporters only, not reaching out.

It's the same problem that the conservative party has in the United Kingdom, they make no effort to win over people from the other side, they just preach to their own.

Clinton was a good president, he made an effort to seek the middle ground

 

[Sprafa]

meh. some nutcko will come in and say Bush stole the election again...

Actually, they did get the majority of Independents. The problem was more Democrats voted for Bush than Republicans voted for Kerry.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Precisely.

My point is, the Republicans did get people from the other side over.

 

[CptStern]

I heard a radio program this morning that said 40% of americans are belong to the evangelical faith ..so does Bush. Bush won because he tacked on the same sex marriage vote in a lot of the swing states ...pretty easy to read between the lines

 

[PvtRyan]

I reckon it's because Bush appealed to the conservative Christians more.
Wasn't morality the major reason for most people to vote for Bush?
I thought about 80% of the people that think moral was the most important thing in the elections, voted for Bush.

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

Clinton was a good president, he made an effort to seek the middle ground

Yeah if you call all his scandals good too, I might agree.

Actually, they did get the majority of Independents. The problem was more Democrats voted for Bush than Republicans voted for Kerry.

If a republican voted for a democrat, they deserved to be smacked and kicked in the nuts. Because I don't see republicans voting for democrats.

 

[Absinthe]

Yeah if you call all his scandals good too, I might agree.

Oh yeah, the White Stain (tm) in the White House.

I wish I could come up with a similarly witty name for the War on Iraq.

If a republican voted for a democrat, they deserved to be smacked and kicked in the nuts. Because I don't see republicans voting for democrats.

What?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I heard a radio program this morning that said 40% of americans are belong to the evangelical faith ..so does Bush. Bush won because he tacked on the same sex marriage vote in a lot of the swing states ...pretty easy to read between the lines

Kerry went against Gay Marriage too. He said that in his second debate. Lesser of the two evils? I think so.

 

[Sprafa]

Kerry went against Gay Marriage too. He said that in his second debate. Lesser of the two evils? I think so.

I believe his official stance was something in the lines of allowing civil marriage or something in those lines...

 

[CptStern]

Kerry went against Gay Marriage too. He said that in his second debate. Lesser of the two evils? I think so.

ah but he didnt push for states to vote for gay amendment to state constitutions now did he?


IMHO opinion if ever a political candiadate said the word "god" it would be the very last time I'd support him ..how people elect a president that believes in creationism is beyond me

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Civil marriage is still against the concept of Gay Marriage officially. Its also, against "straight marriage", in the idea someone could be civily unified, but not "married".

This also happens to be a firm arguement for those in the anti-gay marriage crowd, that want to seek a middle ground.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

IMHO opinion if ever a political candiadate said the word "god" it would be the very last time I'd support him ..how people elect a president that believes in creationism is beyond me

Because of our belief system. How did the Iraqi's let Saddam Huessein into office? He used the context of God many times, and how can people in the Gaza strip, admire an allah?

They too believe in creationism, so if your against one on those grounds, your against the rest.

 

[othello]

why the democrats lost.

 

[skarrob]

I think only people who pay taxes should vote.These are the people who run america on their backs not the idiots that cant even name the vice President.People who went to vote just because MTV told them to are so lame.If you have to have someone take you to the voting booth you should'nt vote.People just wanting something from the government"a hand out" shouldnt vote either.If you voted for Kerry and you knew what he was about and had passion for the man then thats fine,but if you voted for Kerry just because you hated Bush thats stupid. Get involved in your community listen to both sides and reason between the 2 candidates.GL everyone for the next 4 yrs. and yes i voted for Bush

 

[The Monkey]

Beacouse a lot of americans follow their heart and not their brain.

 

[blahblahblah]

I heard a radio program this morning that said 40% of americans are belong to the evangelical faith ..so does Bush. Bush won because he tacked on the same sex marriage vote in a lot of the swing states ...pretty easy to read between the lines

Closer to 25% actually.

I've discussed this with several political science professors (who are democrats) and they all point to the lack of a common stance on issues with the democratic party. They also blame the elitiest appearance of the democratic party. John Kerry isn't the type of person who you want representing the working party. That is why the vast majority of people vote for Bush. Bush, even though he is rich, appears to be from a working class background.

There are many other issues that I have learned about as well. It was rather interesting stuff.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Indeed Blahblahblah.

I find this whole affair very interesting, especially since Bush took former democrat states...

 

[skarrob]

All i heard was i have a plan. talking about Kerry.He never said what his plan was. other than it was different from Bush.

 

[burner69]

Because of our belief system. How did the Iraqi's let Saddam Huessein into office? He used the context of God many times, and how can people in the Gaza strip, admire an allah?

They too believe in creationism, so if your against one on those grounds, your against the rest.

I was pretty sure it was Americans who put Saddam into power. That's what I've been told.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

EDIT: But you're right, I believe he used religion as a tool for his ways as well

 

[Homer]

If a republican voted for a democrat, they deserved to be smacked and kicked in the nuts. Because I don't see republicans voting for democrats.

I would vote for Lieberman.

 

[Neutrino]

why the democrats lost.

Which says:

1) A weak Candidate

2) Poor spokesmen (women)

3) Ambiguity of message.

Yes, they got 48% of the American vote from a weak candidate, poor spokemen, and an ambiguous message.

Now I think they could have done quite a few things better and they probably could have improved some of those things, but lets not be forgetting just how close this race was.


I wish people would stop thinking this was some sort of landslide victory and that it's now ok for the conservative to do what they want since "everyone" (51%) agree with them.

Here's an interesting statistic:

Out of 7 polls taken from 10/28 to 11/01, on average 51% of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/direction_of_country.html

So I sincerely hope Bush and the like don't take his victory as some sort of sign that the American people support whatever he wants to do. The election could have easily gone the other way and I hope he remembers that in his next four years.

If a republican voted for a democrat, they deserved to be smacked and kicked in the nuts. Because I don't see republicans voting for democrats.

So you think party lines are the be all and end all of political opinions? What ever happened to independant thought? I'm saying this for both democrats and republicans equally.

 

[gh0st]

election 2004: bush: 51.07%, kerry: 47.99%
election 2000: bush: 47.87%, gore: 48.38%
election 1996: clinton: 49.23%, dole: 40.72%
election 1992: clinton: 43.02%, bush: 37.35%
election 1988: bush: 53.37%, dukakis: 45.65%

the point is, no presidential candidate has won more than 50% of the vote since bush's father in 1988. 1 percent may not sound like much to a big man such as yourself neutrino, but thats a difference of several million votes, and several million people. the hugeness of bush's (and the gop in generals) victory in this election shouldent be underscored.

Yes, they got 48% of the American vote from a weak candidate, poor spokemen, and an ambiguous message.

youd be surprised how many people vote within party lines religiously, as evidenced by disturbed.

 

[Neutrino]

election 2004: bush: 51.07%, kerry: 47.99%
election 2000: bush: 47.87%, gore: 48.38%
election 1996: clinton: 49.23%, dole: 40.72%
election 1992: clinton: 43.02%, bush: 37.35%
election 1988: bush: 53.37%, dukakis: 45.65%

the point is, no presidential candidate has won more than 50% of the vote since bush's father in 1988.

How is that meaningful at all? In every election between now and then there has been a much stronger third party. That is why no one got over 50%.

1 percent may not sound like much to a big man such as yourself neutrino,

What exactly is that suppose to mean? Really, I'm curious.

but thats a difference of several million votes, and several million people. the hugeness of bush's (and the gop in generals) victory in this election shouldent be underscored.

On the contrary, I do not think it was that big of a victory. I would say the same if Kerry had won by that margin. Fact is the country is incredibly polorized, politically. This is a fact. So my point is that I think it would be irresponsible of Bush to ignore half the population when governing the US. Heck, he even claims to agree with me and many people are predicting his second term will be much more centrist than his first one, though I personally highly doubt it.

youd be surprised how many people vote within party lines religiously.

I know about 95% or so of both democrats and republican always vote with in party lines. I was just responding to DiSTuRbEd's idea that it was somehow wrong for a democrat or republican to vote outside their party if they want to.

 

[gh0st]

How is that meaningful at all? In every election between now and then there has been a much stronger third party. That is why no one got over 50%.

a 1 percent third party showing isnt significant, its been that way for some time.

What exactly is that suppose to mean? Really, I'm curious.

whatever youd like it to mean

On the contrary, I do not think it was that big of a victory. I would say the same if Kerry had won by that margin. Fact is the country is incredibly polorized, politically. This is a fact. So my point is that I think it would be irresponsible of Bush to ignore half the population when governing the US. Heck, he even claims to agree with me and many people are predicting his second term will be much more centrist than his first one, though I personally highly doubt it.

the fact that you consistantly say "id say this even if ____ happened" only besets your already biased opinion. its really alright to have one, we all do - its human. the country isnt as polarized as you claim. even with the democrat propoganda machine at full speed (moveon.org, michael moore, hollywood, and the supposed advantage given to democrats given the more people vote) they STILL lost to bush by a much wider margin than even clinton won with for his elections. was the country polarized then? the reason people vote for bush is that he is a much better repsentation of the average american to the average voter, and many americans share his moral values. kerry seems above it all, and while a great speaker is lousy at the same time. i predict a MUCH more conservative ticket than last term, with bush's mandate

I don't think so. I know about 95% or so of both democrats and republican always vote with in party lines. I was just responding to DiSTuRbEd's idea that it was somehow wrong for a democrat or republican to vote outside their party if they want to.

yeah, "95%" of all democrats and republicans vote within party lines, kind of what i was saying.

 

[Korgoth]

No, the democrats lost because we didn't have a guy playing "redneck" who could appeal to the nascar dads and security soccer moms, clinton was southern, bush is southern, its all relative.

The only high point of this whole ordeal is that he can't run again, ever.

 

[gh0st]

No, the democrats lost because we didn't have a guy playing "redneck" who could appeal to the nascar dads and security soccer moms, clinton was southern, bush is southern, its all relative.

The only high point of this whole ordeal is that he can't run again, ever.

clinton, bush, carter, and many others were southern. people dont want a liberal massachusetts senator, the most successful democrats (inc. al gore) have been from the south. btw quit using the term redneck, i'm not calling all new englanders a bunch of arrogant appeasers, which would be a lot more accurate than "redneck."

edit: howard dean isnt a southerner, whoops. probably why he lost.

 

[Korgoth]

redneck redneck redneck redneck, hell, I know rednecks they wouldn't take offense to the term redneck, most of them have huge "redneck" stickers on their trucks with their rebel flags and their gun racks.

Forgive me if the truth offends you, but i never callled you a redneck so get over it. (and btw, say whatever you want about new englanders or bostonians or californians I don't give a shit.)

 

[gh0st]

redneck redneck redneck redneck, hell, I know rednecks they wouldn't take offense to the term redneck, most of them have huge "redneck" stickers on their trucks with their rebel flags and their gun racks.

Forgive me if the truth offends you, but i never callled you a redneck so get over it. (and btw, say whatever you want about new englanders or bostonians or californians I don't give a shit.)

haha most democrats do throw tantrums, maybe thats why they lost. dipshit :dozey:

 

[ShadowFox]

a 1 percent third party showing isnt significant, its been that way for some time.

8 years constitutes as some time?

Assuming one percent of Perot's 8 percent in 1996 goes to Clinton, then he has a majority. Not a stretch by any means.

And of course, in 1992 Perot got a whole 19 percent, and it probably cost Bush Sr. the election.

 

[Korgoth]

haha most democrats do throw tantrums, maybe thats why they lost. dipshit :dozey:

Oh i'm a dipshit, ok when did I call you a name?

Go to church, drink a six pack, shoot a horse and **** your sister because you and bush are one in the same. I swear you'd take a bullet for that crook, you are pathetic.

 

[gh0st]

Oh i'm a dipshit, ok when did I call you a name?

Go to church, drink a six pack, shoot a horse and **** your sister because you and bush are one in the same. I swear you'd take a bullet for that crook, you are pathetic.

you are a dipshit, you didnt have to call me anything its pretty obvious by the way you spew shit. i do go to church, do you have a problem with that? i'll live my life however the **** i want, deal with it. i live in seattle, not some deep south slum, i and i dont have a sister. id **** her if she was hot. who would take a bullet for who, you're the god damn fanatic here.

8 years constitutes as some time?

Assuming one percent of Perot's 8 percent in 1996 goes to Clinton, then he has a majority. Not a stretch by any means.

And of course, in 1992 Perot got a whole 19 percent, and it probably cost Bush Sr. the election.

but you dont know whether someone who voted for perot would have voted for clinton instead.

 

[burner69]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48404

 

[Korgoth]

you are a dipshit, you didnt have to call me anything its pretty obvious by the way you spew shit. i do go to church, do you have a problem with that? i'll live my life however the **** i want, deal with it. i live in seattle, not some deep south slum, i and i dont have a sister. id **** her if she was hot. who would take a bullet for who, you're the god damn fanatic here.


but you dont know whether someone who voted for perot would have voted for clinton instead.

Aaaaw some one needs a hug.. Poor guy.

 

[cronholio]

8 years constitutes as some time?

Assuming one percent of Perot's 8 percent in 1996 goes to Clinton, then he has a majority. Not a stretch by any means.

And of course, in 1992 Perot got a whole 19 percent, and it probably cost Bush Sr. the election.

You can't assume his vote would've gone to Clinton. Perot was a businessman and a lot of what he was saying appealed to corporate America, independent != liberal.

 

[gh0st]

Aaaaw some one needs a hug.. Poor guy.

wow youre the most bitter liberal ive ever met. sig worthy and priceless.

edit: actually i dont want your filth contaminating my signature, ill just keep it dear to my heart.

 

[Korgoth]

Jeee whiz, you'd do that for me, thanks a million gh0st.
Funniest part is you took me seriously, and you claim i'm the one over reacting? lol
(oh yeah, nice comeback... I guess.)

PS. Liberal is not an insult, but please, try again!

 

[gh0st]

Jeee whiz, you'd do that for me, thanks a million gh0st.
Funniest part is you took me seriously, and you claim i'm the one over reacting? lol
(oh yeah, nice comeback... I guess.)

PS. Liberal is not an insult, but please, try again!

i wasent trying to insult you. im conservative, and youre liberal. why would you even construe that as an insult? oh iiiii see, you want to continue this. by all means pm me, theres no point to getting this thread locked over "redneck redneck redneck."

 

[burner69]

Gh0ost, just wondring wat the America > Earth bit meant.

 

[Korgoth]

meh, i'm finished, actually I never even started but whatever. I said redneck, sure, but I never called you a redneck. For some reason you took it as though I did, and for some reason you took it as an insult. Well to be perfectly honest, I live in Kentucky, surrouned by rednecks. And let me tell you, redneck is not a derrogatory term to them. I was being honest when I said they had redneck stickers, rebel flags, and gun racks on their trucks, thats no lie where I live.

 

[gh0st]

Gh0ost, just wondring wat the America > Earth bit meant.

gh0st. not gh0ost. its satire.

meh, i'm finished, actually I never even started but whatever. I said redneck, sure, but I never called you a redneck. For some reason you took it as though I did, and for some reason you took it as an insult. Well to be perfectly honest, I live in Kentucky, surrouned by rednecks. And let me tell you, redneck is not a derrogatory term to them. I was being honest when I said they had redneck stickers, rebel flags, and gun racks on their trucks, thats no lie where I live.

im just tired of people saying everyone who supports bush is a stupid redneck, because im neither stupid or a redneck. i know what you mean about actual rednecks though, eastern washington has a ton.